<.

:EH1'JFIED TRUE COP)'

~~~~.
WI REDO V. iJ1T.iN
Div. ion Clerk of Co11 rt
Third Division
JUL 1 1 2011

3L\epublic of tbe ~btltpptnes

$->upreme <!Court
. ;!ffilanila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 218942

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

CARPIO, J., *
- versus - VELASCO, JR., Chairperson,
BERSAMIN,
REYES, and
TIJAM, JJ.

ROLANDO BISORAy LAGONOY,

.Accused-Appellant.
Promulgated:
June ..5, 2017

~~-
x------------------------~-------------------------------------------------~-------x

DECISION

TIJAM, J.:
Accused-appellant Rolando Bisora y Lagonoy challenges in this
appeal the October 10, 2014 Decision 1 promulgated by the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06282, which affirmed the judgment2 of
conviction for Rape rendered against him on June 28, 2013 by Bran'?h 172
of the Valenzuela City Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case No.
552-V-12.

'Designated as an additional member as per Raffle dated February 20, 2017.

1
Penned by Associate ·Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Agnes
Reyes-Carpio and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes; rollo, pp. 2-11.
2
Penned by Judge Naiicy Rivas-Palmones, CA rollo, pp. 57-60.

"
Decision 2 G.R. No. 218942

The Facts

Accused-appellant was charged under the following information:

That on or about May 23, 2012, in Valenzuela City and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
design, by means of force and intimidation employed upon the person of
one AAA, 16 years old, DOB: August 17, 1995 (complainant), did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse
with the said minor complainant against her will and without her consent,
thereby subjecting the said minor complainant to sexual abuse which
debased, degraded and demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity as a
human being. 3

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.

AAA, 4 the complainant, testified that she was raped by accused-

appellant twice: on September 9, 2011 and May 23, 2012. AAA declared
that accused-appellant started courting her in September 2011, and they
became sweethearts one month thereafter. AAA and accused-appellant's
relationship remained a secret as AAA was afraid of her parents.

On September 9, 2011, AAA narrated that she was requested by her

grandmother to call her uncle at the billiard hall. Accused-appellant, who
was also at the same place, asked AAA if they could talk. Accused-appellant
then brought AAA to the restroom where he forced her to have sexual
intercourse with him. Fearing that her parents would know what happened
between her and accused-appellant, AAA went away and stayed with her
aunt in Cavite. Nevertheless, AAA's parents learned about the incident.
AAA alleged that she wanted to file a complaint then but she did not know
accused-appellant's surname.

Meanwhile, AAA was again raped on May 23, 2012, at around 2

o'clock in the afternoon. AAA was then at her house when accused-appellant
invited her to talk. Accused-appellant brought AAA to the neighbor's
comfort room. While inside, accused-appellant told AAA to remove her
shorts. Fearing accused-appellant, AAA complied. Accused-appellant then
inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina, while in a standing position. AAA
pushed accused-appellant, but to no avail.

1
Id. at 12.
4
In line with the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006), citing Rule on
Violence Against Women and their Children, Sec. 40; Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act
No. 9262, Rule XI, Sec. 63, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children
Act," the real names of the rape victims will not be disclosed. The Court will instead use fictitious initials to r
represent them throughout the decision. The personal circumstances of the victims of any other information
tending to establish or compromise their identities will likewise be withheld. 't'
Decision 3 G.R. No. 218942

Through their neighbors, AAA's parents had lea~ed what happened. ·

AAA's parents then brought her to the police station where she executed a
written statement regarding the incident. AAA declared in open court that
she was a minor when she was raped by accused-appellant.

Aside from AAA, the prosecution also presented Police Senior

Inspector (PSI) Jocelyn P. Cruz, the medico-legal officer of the Northern
Police District Crime Laboratory who examined. AAA. She testified that
AAA's hymen showed clear signs of blunt penetration trauma, which could
have been caused by an erect penis or finger.
. .

Accused-appellant, on the other hand, denied that he raped AAA. He

stated that he was merely introduced to AAA by a common friend, after
which they became sweethearts. He admitted to being in the billiard hall and
seeing AAA therein on May 23, 2012, when AAA was allegedly raped, but
denied that he had a sexual encounter with her.

On June 28, 2013, the RTC rendered judgment, finding accused- ·

appellant guilty of Rape under paragraph l(a) of Art. 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and ordering him to pay the complainant moral damages of
PhPS0,000, civil indemnity of PhPS0,000, and exemplary damages of .
PhP25,000.

Seeing merit on the RTC ruling, the CA,· in its October 10, 2014
Decision, affirmed the RTC decision in its entirety. Accused-appellant then
comes before this. Court, maintaining that the prosecution failed to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable. doubt.

The Ruling of the Court

We dismiss the appeal.

For conviction in the crime of rape, the following elements must be

proved beyond reasonable doubt: ( 1) that the accused had carnal knowledge
of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of
force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is
demented. 5

In this case, We find no merit in accused-appellant's argument that the

prosecution failed to establish force or intimidation.

"{:
5
People of the Philippines v. Elmer Baldo y Santain, G.R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 218942

AAA's failure to shout or to tenaciously resist accused-appellant

should not be taken against her since such negative assertion would not ipso
facto make ·voluntary her submission to accused-appellant's criminal act. In
rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's
perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As
already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way.
Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into
insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may
offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any
resistance at all. Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape ·
victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the
force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as the force or
intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the
point. 6

In this case, We find that accused-appellant employed force upon

AAA when he forcibly held AAA by the hand as ·he led her to the comfort
room. We also find that intimidation facilitated the commission of the
offense, considering accused-appellant's persistent threats to AAA in saying
"subukan mong magsumbong sa magulang mo ". We are cognizant of the
fact that the victim, AAA, was then a 16-year old girl who heavily feared her
parents, while accused-appellant was a 42-year old man. Evidently, it is not
unreasonable to discern that AAA was cowed to surrendering to. accused-
appellant's bestial desirt'.s. We note that in AAA's direct testimony, she
narrated that she felt afraid when accused-appellant uttered the said
statement. 7

Neither do We find meritorious accused-appellant's claim questioning

AAA's failure to immediately report the incident. Suffice it to state that
delay in reporting an incident of rape is not an indication of fabrication and
does not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant. This is
because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her
defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny .. Only when the delay is
unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant. 8

As to' accused-appellant's claim that he and AAA were sweethearts,

such fact does not necessarily negate AAA's lack of consent to the sexual
encounter with accused-appellant. As has been consistently ruled, "a love
affair does not justifY rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated
against her will. Love is not a license for lust. "9

(
6
Id.
7
See CArollo, p. 47.
8
Pe~ple of the Philippines v. Dandito Lastra/lo y Doe, G.R. No. 212631, November 7, 2016.
9
People of the Philippines v. Johnlie Lagangga y Dumpa, G.R. No. 207633, December 9, 2015.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 218942 ·

Finally, the level of healing of AAA's hymen does not cast any doubt
to the conclusion that she was raped. The essence of rape is the carnal
knowledge of a woman against her consent. A freshly broken hymen is not
one of its essential elements. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact,
the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. Penetration of the penis by entry
into the lips of th~ vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen,
is enough to justify a conviction for rape. To repeat, rupture of the hymen or
laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a
conviction for rape. 10

In sum, the prosecution was able to establish accused-appellant's guilt

of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
.
•
As to the penalty, Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No.
8353, prescribes reclusion perpetua as the penalty for the crime of simple
rape. The trial court, concurred by the appellate court, thus correctly ·
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court also resolves to
increase the amount of civil. indemnity of PhPS0,000 to PhP75,000; moral
damages of PhP50,000 to PhP75,000; and exemplary damages of PhP25,000
to PhP7 5,000 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 11 The amount of damages
awarded should earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of
this judgment until said amounts are fully paid. 12

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of

Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 06282 dated October 10, 2014
which found accused-appellant Rolando Bisora y Lagonoy GUILTY of rape
in Criminal Case No. 552-V-12 is AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATIONS
that: (1) the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary
damages are each increased to PhP75,000; and, (2) all damages awarded
shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this
judgment until fully paid.

· Considering that the accused-appellant is a detention prisoner, he is

hereby credited with the full length of time he has been under detention.

SO ORDERED.

~
{

NOEL G ~~ TIJAM
Asso Justice

10
People Of The Philippines and AAA v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015.
11
People OfThe Philippines v. lreneoJugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
12
People 0/The Philippines v. ~ivencio Ausa, G.R. No. 209032, August 3, 2016.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 218942

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

J. VELASCO, JR.
Assyciate Justice
hairperson

IENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of opinion of the
Court's Division.

J. VELASCO, JR.
ociate Justice
Chaireferson, Third Division

{
Decision 7 G.R. No. 218942

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

Qi_~~
~rgn:l;-
11 Clerk of Coart
Third Division
JUL 1 7 2017